PHOENIX — The husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords generated nearly 4,000 comments on Facebook from people on both sides of the gun debate after he posted a photo of himself buying a military-style rifle — a purchase he said he made to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he's lobbying Congress to ban.

A background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Mark Kelly said in the Facebook post, adding that it's scary to think people can buy similar guns without background checks at gun shows or on the Internet.

Quote:

Doug MacKinlay is the owner of Diamondback Police Supply, the shop where Kelly bought the guns. He said Kelly bought the rifle on March 5 but couldn't immediately take possession of it because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime, MacKinlay said.

So had he tried to purchase it next month he would have walked out with the weapon in a matter of moments? Or had the shop not purchased it from a customer, again he would have walked out with the weapon in a matter of moments?

They were probably going to give him the gun right away despite laws because he's famous and all, but then they overheard him talking about posting the pictures on Facebook and decided it would be bad for business.

If I'm reading that right, the issue is that it was a used gun so there was a waiting period for the gun itself (not the customer) to ensure the gun was 'clean'. If it had been a new gun, I'm guessing he would have been able to take possession immediately?

Took a five minute background check and the gun was his. The fact that it had to undergo some history check, the gun, did not change the fact it took five minutes for the background check and however long it took the transaction otherwise.

Google search is so much faster then having to wait the week it took a few years ago.

(Unless of course your point is that it's very easy to acquire such a weapon)

I think that last bit is the general idea, yes.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

Kelly might have made a better point if his record was at least a bit questionable.

Exactly. He should have first engaged in a massive crime spree, then in court smeared his own ***** on his face and grabbed the gavel from the judge and pretended it was a pistol, pointing it at bailiffs and attorneys shouting "bang! Bang!" Then, after being committed and released from a psychiatric lock down, purchased a used gun that had already cleared the 20 day limit to demonstrate how easy it is.

Then he'd have had a point.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

But a guy with a sterling record and service to his country being able to buy a rifle is proof of how easy it is for criminals to get weapons? The problem isn't in the purchasing, it is the lack of accountability after the fact.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I was under the impression that this thread was created, and the article linked, as a:

"LOL, this guy tried to show it was easy to get a gun, but he had to wait 20 days, he failed in his attempt to show how easy it was to get a gun!".

That's how I saw it as well. He kinda failed to get his point across because he wasn't able to just walk out of the store with the weapon. To be fair though, they probably didn't have any new AR-15s for sale, since they're back ordered like 6 months right now. So perhaps he should have planned this a bit better, maybe? What it looks like he accomplished was to show that the existing laws are working just fine.

As to the gun show angle, if he'd wanted to make a point about gun shows, then why didn't he go to a gun show? Seems a bit odd to buy a gun in a gun store, complete with existing background checks in place, and then argue about how easy it would have been to circumvent that process if he'd gone to a gun show. Um... How about showing up at a gun show and then trying to buy a gun using false identification, or no identification, or otherwise simulating the condition you're trying to convince people is a problem?

And, he doesn't have to bother finding out if the person is a psychopath or anything through a background check. WIN for the Second Amendment!

____________________________

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.